Gómez-Acebo & Pombo advises on the Atrys takeover bid, deal of the month for TTR

Summary of legislative and jurisprudential developments relating to the automotive sector.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.

The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 28th Regime Corporate Legal Framework – ‘EU Inc.’, dated 18 March 2026, introduces a new form of European private limited company. Originally envisaged for start-ups and scale-ups, it has been decided to allow its adoption by all companies. There is no minimum share capital requirement; shares may have no nominal value and may carry multiple voting rights, among other features. The Commission is expected to approve model articles of association so that a company can be incorporated online in less than forty-eight hours and for less than one hundred euros.

All cases decided by the Supreme Court and their specific details are discussed. There is no single solution to the problem of terminating a framework supply of services agreement without an exclusivity clause or a minimum purchases obligation.

Directive (EU) 2026/470 (Omnibus I) has been published, limiting the obligation to prepare a sustainability report to public-interest entities with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover of more than €450 million during the preceding financial year, as well as to parent companies of a large group that exceed these figures on a consolidated basis. The Directive amends the audit directive, the accounting directive, the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD).

In Judgment no. 183/2026, of 10 February, the Supreme Court analysed the requirements for the validity and enforceability of an uncertificated registered share pledge and examined the conditions for its avoidance in the context of insolvency proceedings.

This paper analyses the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025, where the Unified Patent Court (UPC) justifies its jurisdiction on the basis of shipment of products from a UPC territory by company listed as authorized representative in the EC and UK markets as event giving rise to damage. Furthermore, although the applicable law with regard to the infringement of the European patent validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is the national law of those States, with regard to the scope of patent protection, the UPC imposes on the defendant—unduly—the burden of proving the specifics of national law.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has ruled that a patent invalidity defence cannot be raised before the Unified Patent Court, with only a counterclaim being possible. This calls into question the way in which the ‘long arm’ is being applied with regard to European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), whether or not they are members of the European Union, since no counterclaim for revocation or plea of invalidity as a defence can be filed or raised with regard to such patents. This raises significant doubts about the compatibility of how the ‘long arm’ is applied in the Unified Patent Court system, given its own Rules of Procedure.

The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.